anne robinson
"but belief that one country is inherently better than any other slips into the realms of intolerance and hate."

I will unhesitatingly state that Australia is superior to North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cuba, and a host of other countries.
Intolerance is sometimes needed to maintain certain standards of living.
Or maybe Lefty intolerance is the only good type of intolerance?

On a further note, why is it Lefty (re)interpreters of the past cannot recognize the positives that the British gave us? Why is racism and imperialism always the centre, and only, focus? Where is the thanks for the advances in technology, medicine, sanitation, roads, etc?
It is this reason as to why the researchers you speak of were ridiculed. There goal is to impose guilt; they have no interest in acknowledging the positives. People have figured out the researchers intentions.

We have to shut down all arts departments, it's the only way to save the country.

Quite a puerile approach, Anne, but maturity will sort it out, if you do not become too fixed in your approach.

The nonsense of “racism” causes this sort of addled thinking.

A clear and sensible approach was supplied by David Stove, the head of the Philosophy Department at Sydney University. Roger Kimball outlined it very well.
“He (David Stove) defined “racism”—a neologism so recent, he points out, that it was not in the OED in 1971—as the belief that “some human races are inferior to others in certain respects, and that it is sometimes proper to make such differences the basis of our behaviour towards people.” Although this proposition is constantly declared to be false, Stove says, “everyone knows it is true, just as everyone knows it is true that people differ in age, sex, health, etc., and that it is sometimes proper to make these differences the basis of our behaviour towards them.”
For example, if you are recruiting potential basketball champions, you would be mad not to be more interested in American Negroes than in Vietnamese… . Any rational person, recruiting an army, will be more interested in Germans than in Italians. If what you want in people is aptitude for forming stable family-ties, you will prefer Italians or Chinese to American Negroes. Pronounced mathematical ability is more likely to occur in an Indian or a Hungarian than in an Australian Aboriginal. If you are recruiting workers, and you value docility above every other trait in a worker, you should prefer Chinese to white Americans. And so on. “
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Who-was-David-Stove--3368
Understand this, and you have begun to overcome the unfortunate lefty bias exhibited in your article.

Where is the balancing study of how racially prejudiced are those who refuse to fly the Australian flag. Didn't they swear allegiance to this country when they were trying to gain citizenship.

This is typical of the left wing academics it is always their own people they attack not a word of any wrong doing on the other side.

We are told we shouldn't celebrate Christmas because we might offend somebody and now some academic is telling us we should be careful not to offend anybody by flying our flag. What next?

The Aboriginies seem to forget that they would now be under Japanese control if our people hadn't fought a war with the Japanese. I think all of the sons and fathers who were lost fighting that war have paid in blood for ownership of this country

'I will unhesitatingly state that Australia is superior to North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cuba, and a host of other countries'.

Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations - you must have a very low opinion of Australia indeed if you think being better than North Korea is a ringing endorsement.

Positives about Australia are pretty easy to find, and one of the best things is that we can strive for higher standards in the way we treat each other, and especially the ways we treat the worst off in our society. Australia is so much more than flags and belligerent slogans, but unfortunately for many on Australia Day that appears to be all 'Australia' is for them.

timdy, did you deliberately take that post out of context?

If not have another look at the post. The subtitle of the article in the comments section is a claim which Aristocrat showed the error of, in context it makes sense to use the worst cases. If Aristocrat had used a list of better countries then the point may be muted by debate of specific aspects of those countries.

Do you consider it to be intolerant or hate to claim that Australia is inherently better than North Korea or a statement of present realities?

As for the article itself there does seem to be some chicken and egg about it. The author speaks of her fear of the flag based on the racism of some who make an issue of the flag, I'd suggest that part of the way the flag is used by those she mentions is partly driven by a reaction to sentiments such as those she promotes.

I don't much like the "We're full" stickers and similar either but believe that they are driven in part by the prominence of the denial of issues which are hurting people.

Not so much a "back-lash to growing awareness of these problems" but a backlash to denial of some other issues.

I've not looked into the research the author mentions but like others have seen how genuine research in some area's has been replaced with advocacy work designed to promote agenda's and views rather than uncover truth. Easy to understand the scepticism.

R0bert

We are indeed so fortunate not to have the problems of North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Cuba.

But why attribute this to nationalism?

Compared with other evils, nationalism is one of the least - I even wonder sometimes whether this minimal indulgence is not a necessary evil under the circumstances. It is negative, but not as negative as other problems we have in Australia, such as drinking, gambling, the nanny state, political dysfunction and the aboriginal wound - and as I mentioned above, even these are small relative to the problems of others.

Let it be, Aristocrat, but to deduce that our blessings and positives are a result of our intolerance is no more intelligent than to deduce that they are a result of our drinking habits.

Australia Day, 26 January 1788, could be celebrated as a dawn of new beginnings, of new opportunities, although our history beyond this beginning has been so sorely tarnished. There has been a lot of mis-management, a failure to engage the original inhabitants, a failure to attempt to understand and to share. But, this was after all an opening of new horizons, and it is now up to us to determine where it will finally lead.

With rare exception, white settlement has been arrogant and ignorant, ambitious and uncompromising, determined and vicious, foolhardy and uncivilised. Thus, any celebration of new beginnings has a very large obstacle to overcome, an almost insurmountable mountain of inhumanity and injustice to conquer and surpass.

Only great compassion and enormous magnanimity on behalf of the original inhabitants can overcome this divide, can render history to its place, and thereby really enable new beginnings. It is a lot to ask, but ask it we must, for we are at an impossible impasse, at a point where we can not move constructively forward unless we can make such a reconcilliation, on both sides.

Nothing can undo the past, so what we must ask is what will it take to create the sort of future of which all may be justly proud. We must find a way to unite in conviction, in tolerance, and in justice.

Aus will never lead the world in carbon taxes and climate change, but it has an opportunity to lead the world in the sort of reconciliation and exemplification of humanity so desperately needed in such places as Israel/Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Myanmar, to name just a few.

Let us then do our best to find this way forward, for all our sakes, and for the common good, through our resolve to unite and be recognised as Australians - not old, not new, but all.

Are you consistant in your beliefs Anne?

For there is another national day in the year on which our flag is displayed everywhere, even on cars. On that 'other' day there is rampant nationalism and a widespread belief our forebears were better than others and their descendents the same. Do we have to ask who we are including in a day of national celebration, on that 'other' day too?

On that day 'are we more concerned about maintaining a set and definable identity which may exclude some of our number' too?

Are such moments on that 'other' day also leading you to fear the flag, even when displayed when Australians still feel free and proud to fly their flag?

Do you want to denigrate Australians love of their flag, their country and their history on that 'other' day too?

'On the 24th of January a report was published on the ABC and across commercial news that suggested flag-flyers on Australia Day are more likely than not to hold racist views'

This appears to be the basis of your fear and your article.

You should know the survey was taken after a b-b-que on Australia Day in Western Australia. It involude very limited questioning, was not broadly based, and was undertaken by a left-wing leaning academic from a university in West Australia.

How you can extrapolate that out as representative of all Australians is unfathomable.

One wonders what results would show if a similar survey was undertaken of ex-servicemen and women, the descendants of ex-servicemen and women, current returned service personnal and their families after the celebrations on that 'other' national day

As much as I love the Aussie flag and think it is a great design. I would be willing to unite with all Australians to pick an entirely new flag that everyone could embrace and have no hostility too.

Are the Aboriginal people willing to pick a new flag too, or is all this talk they go on with about reconciliation something to be sceptical about.

But why, Cherful, would the aboriginals care for this flag or another? They lived without one for about 50000 years and it did not make them any less happy - perhaps we can learn from them!

Flags evolved from warfare - they were initially used to identify the battalions on the battle-field. Is it not time yet to say "enough is enough"?

With all the faults of British settlement everyone has far more opportunity than if the British did not come here. The aboriginal flag would be non existant except for the Settlers because the first people would have no material to make a flag from. The kind of dogma written by the author drives people like me who has never owned a flag to at least consider buying one just to get up the nose of the self loathing judgemental leftist academics.

Flags are a piece of cloth, that has been mentioned was a banner to take to war.
What draws the ire is that the current flag, still identifies Australia as a colonial outpost of the English, and I as a POM find it rediculous, that there are those that still cling to the skirt of the mother country

<But why, Cherful, would the aboriginals care for this flag or another? They lived without one for about 50000 years and it did not make them any less happy - perhaps we can learn from them!

Flags evolved from warfare - they were initially used to identify the battalions on the battle-field. Is it not time yet to say "enough is enough"? Posted by Yuyutsu,>

Yuyutsu

My reference to the Aborigines was because two or three times in the last few years they have burnt the Australian Flag whilst holding up their own Aboriginal Flag. I was suggesting to them that maybe if we all voted on a new design for the Australian Flag would they then be willing to accept conciliation under one flag which they would have a say in voting for. After all they keep calling for reconciliation I just thought it may at least unite all the ethnic groups here under one Australian flag if they were all consulted on the design. I thought maybe it could help in uniting the nation in that respect.

Dear Cherful,

I was not aware of the existence of the aboriginal flag - what a shame, it only goes to show how aboriginals were corrupted by the western ways. So long as they keep one foot here and one foot there, I'm afraid they will not be happy.

Notwithstanding the aboriginal plight, I wonder when the rest of us will wean ourselves off the flag-habit and with it the whole silly phenomena of national identity (but as I wrote above, that wouldn't be our first priority because we still have worse vices than nationalism).

While I find the use of the word 'academic' as a veiled insult somewhat irritating, I think in this case it's worth exploring. I've spent quite a bit of time with academics in humanities departments, focusing on areas including Australian history and nationalism. The basic trend in many current historiography programs is useful: rather than reading the history books and looking at monuments to see what is celebrated, look to see what is NOT celebrated. Look to fill in the gaps. The trouble is that, when one focuses on this for too long, one forgets to look at what is celebrated and why. Too many academics become 'black armband' historians because they're too busy looking in the shadows.

A few thoughts in this case.

Firstly, the rather odd claim that 'genocidal policies' began on 26/01/1788 doesn't really hold up to reason. Governor Phillip did not set foot on Australian soil and immediately start slaughtering the natives. Indeed, his policy was that they be treated well. This may well have been ignored, and certainly history suggests that it didn't last long. Holding up the 26th of January as the birthday of a genocidal policy is a little emotive and dishonest.

Secondly, I find the condemnation of nationalism a little shallow. Certainly nationalism can lead to racism, including a belief that one race is inherently superior to another. This, in turn, can lead to atrocities. In its most basic form, however, nationalism is a sense of national identity and a desire to advance the cause of the nation, whether in a nation-state or not. Nationalism led to the Federation of Australia, which worked out pretty well. As for flag-waving Aussies being racist, I wonder what other indicators could sit alongside flags on cars as equally linked to racism. Socio-economic status? Geographic location? Choice in car manufacturer and engine capacity? Favourite beer? I don't dispute the veracity of the research, but I do wonder about its intent - and what WASN'T researched.

Hmm ... maybe those humanities lecturers are bringing about their own undoing by insisting that we look in the gaps.

Anne Robinson's article expresses the typical attitudes of the chardonnay sucking Gucci Socialists with which Australia is presently infested.

The pose they strike in their compulsive desire to feel intellectually and morally superior to everybody is, that Nationalism is dead, and Internationalism is the new indicator of brahmin caste identity. Nationalism equates in the trendy mind with Racism, which is the new heresy for those who believe in moral absolutes. It also denotes membership of the lower order hoi polloi, to whom the trendy's claim leadership over, but to whom they totally despise.

Therefore, the card carrying psuedo-intellectual parvenu must never express pride in country and people, but must always strive to dump on ones own, while appauding the efforts of failed cultures to barge into Australia, whether we want them to or not.

It is indicative of Anne's attitudes, that she actually hurrumphs at the sight of Australians flying their own flag on Australia Day. What she probably hates most, is that little Union Jack in the top corner. She has never made the connection, that the very best countries in the world, to whom the illegal economic migrants of the world are desperate to join, are those settled by the British.

This hatred of their own culture and people, is why most Australians totally despise the left wing internationalists like Anne. It is also the reason why the Labor party's membership is dropping by thousands every year. Working class Australians are noted for their patriotism to their culture and people, and since the present leadership of the Labor party appears to hate white Australians, they can hardly be surprised if Australians vote with their feet and leave what was one the Party of the working class.

Just taking a sideways-on view of this thread for a moment, how do the good folk who support flag-based nationalism feel about a recent thread that discussed the possible secession of Western Australia?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13041

The reality is that borders between countries - and hence the flags that are used to identify the people within those borders - are, historically, quite fluid. A comparison of school atlases from, say, the 1900s, 1930s, 1950s and today will testify to that. Economic issues, religious differences, war and the post-war "allocation" of territories, all have had an influence on the lines that are drawn from time to time.

So "allegiance" to a particular flag is on its own a nonsense. There has to be a second-level, people-driven need to be part of a specific, identifiable sub-section of humanity. Personally, I would be just as happy to identify with pre-Federation NSW, as I am to identify with Australia as a whole. I'd prefer one without a Union flag in its top corner, but hey, it isn't that important unless you take symbolism to the nth degree, and pretend that it represents a form of oppression.

And while there is a sub-set of the people who use the flag as a convenient emblem of their aggression to "otherness", they tend to be otherwise inarticulate. Best to ignore them rather than make a fuss over them, in my view.

Dear Lego,

What makes you think that the only alternative to nationalism is socialism and internationalism?

Lack of nationalism is merely a sign of intelligence - Why should anyone feel proud for something they have not even made? Replacing this with internationalism is therefore even sillier - for we have not created the world!

As Pericles just mentioned, "people-driven [by a] need to be part of a specific, identifiable sub-section of humanity". Many get this satisfaction from a local sports team, or a political party, or any other type of club. This is an acceptable weakness, but not something to be proud of. Ultimately we should not identify with anything, not even with our own body and mind. Ultimately - until then, we should rather identify with smaller groups to which we actually contributed significantly in person.

Regarding the cessation of Western Australia, Pericles, I support the cessation of all states. Occupying a whole continent by just one country is ridiculous. The commonwealth of Australia is way too large and the larger a body is, the less flexible and accommodating to individual needs and wishes it is.

Yuyutsu
"Lack of nationalism is merely a sign of intelligence"

Where to begin.
Nationalism is simply tribal behaviour but on a national level. This has been part of the human condition for thousands of years. Human beings prefer their own kind for reasons of belonging and security. I fail to see how disliking your own kind and feeling isolated relates to intelligence.

Yuyutsu
"Many get this satisfaction from a local sports team, or a political party, or any other type of club. This is an acceptable weakness, but not something to be proud of. Ultimately we should not identify with anything, not even with our own body and mind. Ultimately - until then, we should rather identify with smaller groups to which we actually contributed significantly in person."

Should not be proud of anything! Not even our own body and mind!
My goodness, this is nihilism. Are we allowed to do anything without shame?
Actually, this is a perfect example of the impracticality and self-hatred that festers in Leftist thinking.
Keep up the good work yuyutsu.

imajulianutter
"You should know the survey was taken after a b-b-que on Australia Day in Western Australia. It involude very limited questioning, was not broadly based, and was undertaken by a left-wing leaning academic from a university in West Australia."

Thanks for that. I didn't know it was such a "casual" research interview. Sounds so professional.

Also, the data from the interviews could have been reported positively instead of negatively. Could not the researched data be interpreted as pride instead of racism? Or as protecting shared values?
No. It's easier to report it negatively and induce shame.

Hi Yuyitsu.

All human beings have a compulsive human need to feel that they are part of a group. That human need is programmed into our DNA.

Realisation of this concept, was first proposed by the eminent psychologist Maslov, who published it in “Maslov’s Heirarchy of Needs.” All human beings do not have one identity, they have multiple social identities. A man may identify himself as male, European, Australian, a Labor voter, a hunter and a fisherman, a Bulldogs supporter, and a father. It is not a “weakness”, or something to be ashamed of, Yuyitsu. Unless you believe that being human is something to be ashamed of?

The idea that “intelligent” people do not have identities, is contradicted by the fact, that those making that claim are implying that they are identifiable members of “the intelligent ones.” One of your own identities Yuyitsu, is that you see yourself as “intelligent”. So you are parroting the slogan which firmly identifies you as an educated, intelligent, stong, Brahmin, who can then look down your nose at the “weak”, “unintelligent” ones who are unfashionably "patriotic”. Your attitude is indicative of social snobbery, my dear Yuyitsu. The paradox of the “intelligent” caste, is that their values endorse Socialist Egalitarianism combined with social climbing superiority.

Interestingly, the concept that an “intelligent” person should not have an identity, is purely a Western concept. It would be regarded as total insanity in collective societies. In non western countries, social identity is far more important than personnel identity. In most eastern countries, a person would introduce themselves in the manner of, “I am a Howeitat of the Bula clan, I am a sheik and a hajji, my name is Abdullah.”

Dear Aristocrat,

"Are we allowed to do anything without shame?"

Unlike the Leftists/Socialists (which you strangely associate me with), "allowed" isn't in my dictionary. At most I may point out and tell you: "Look, this course-of-action is wiser than that", then leave you at that. I also don't have a policy of "disliking my own kind".

Re "feeling isolated", it is people who identify with groups that feel most isolated when the object of their identification turns its back to them (or even simply doesn't shine their face at them as usual). God never turns His back to you, so once with God you should never feel isolated.

One should ULTIMATELY feel neither proud nor ashamed of anything, but the road is long and the vice of nationalism/patriotism isn't the worst or the first in line to be eliminated.

Dear Lego,

"All human beings have a compulsive human need to feel that they are part of a group. That human need is programmed into our DNA."

Compulsive indeed! Fortunately, we don't need to remain slaves to our DNA.

Being human is neither to be proud nor ashamed of, but it is an error of perception and ultimately we should realize that we are not humans and never were, that we only wear a human body for that many decades, then shed it off.

Intelligence is God-given, so being proud of it is a mistake/weakness. That does not imply that intelligence in itself should be denied (eg. the Tall-Poppy Syndrome).

Being a Brahmin is not a social position, but a fact: either one is, or one isn't. It has to do with one's stage of spiritual evolution, not with a social caste. For the record, I do not endorse Socialist Egalitarianism. I also do not endorse social climbing superiority: Brahmins by nature tend to keep to themselves, seeking isolation with a focus on God rather than on society. They have no interest in domination. However, when they do interact with society they teach and bless those who seek their wisdom.

Eastern countries have their failings too!

It may have escaped the contributors to this comment thread, but Anne's article was not concerned so much with the study and its supposed confirmation of flag identification and racism.

Go and read it again. Wasn't it instead concerned about the level of hatred subsequently directed at those who conducted and published the research? (Yes, the argument isn't all that clearly put, but there you go.)

Discussions of racism and flag waving do provoke extreme reactions in Australia.

The lefties might be annoying, but aren't we kidding ourselves if we don't acknowledge that certain forms of flag waving do go together with hot-headed nationalism in this country (just like in other countries), and that nationalism and racism are often brought together in the denegration of groups that are not our own?

I for one am sick and tired of abusive online racists trying either to disclaim their racism or justify it. It has to be one of the unprettiest things about the internet.

I guess I will have to leave you to your thoughts again Yuyutsu. I speak as a rationalist and and atheist, so when people start using a non existent God to justify their arguments, or start talking about "spirituality", I know that I can't win against that nonsense.

It's like trying to argue evolution to someone who thinks that the world was created in seven days.

As for brahmin superiority, if you think that people who are nationalists are "weak" and not "intelligent", and you are not a nationalist, then you are indirectly declaring that you are "strong" and "intelligent". That is your own self identity.

You have just created two classes of people, the weak and the stupid, and the strong and the smart. Naturally, you identify with the upper class. Not that there is anything wrong with preening your ego by thinking that you are smarter and stronger than others, it is a very human thing to do.

Dear Lego,

Though I do not possess this specific weakness and folly of nationalism, I do possess other bad habits which other people have not, some of which are even more severe, hence I cannot consider myself smarter and stronger than others.

I mentioned God twice: first by mentioning that intelligence is God-given and second by discussing Brahmins.

As for the first reference, would it matter if intelligence was not God-given? Would it then justify the tall-poppy syndrome?

As for the second, referencing Brahmins, I did so only because you mentioned them first, and being a Brahmin is a religious term.

Cardigan, “racism” is not a principle, it is an epithet produced by the politics of hate to attack people who tell the truth about a race which happens not to be white.

It is quite permissible to tell the truth about the white race, or for that matter, lies. The “anti racists”, as they call themselves, or anti whites as they really are, give that a free pass.

The use of the term “racist” should be proscribed. It denigrates the white race in the same way as the "n" word was said to denigrate blacks.

As I pointed out in my post of 30 January above, the term has no valid basis. It should never be used in sensible discussion, and should be extirpated from our language in view of the shameful use to which it has been put since it first reared its ugly head in the 1970s.

It has generally been used in a vituperative manner, and its use should never have been tolerated. To link it with national pride in the flag is just another example of the insanity of the politics which invented the term.

In my original draft of this post, I set out the "n" word in full, and was instructed to "remove the profanity". I would like to see a similar instruction for the "r" word.

Leo,

Race does not exist.
Some people think it does.
Those people then go on and on and on and on about races.
After a while that makes them racist.

How else would you like that behaviour described?

Lego writes the usual rubbish about atheist being rational when they hold to the something from nothing myth. They even take it further and call it science. Far from rational despite the arrogant asserion.

Cardigan, you ask me: “How else would you like that behaviour described?”

It is not up to me, it is up to the persons wishing to describe the behaviour.

We manage without the “n” word, so we will manage without the “r” word.

Fortunately, the highly developed English language makes many options available, so it is not difficult.

Leo,

There is a world of difference between the n-word and the r-word.

The n-word is based on human colour prejudice (as the w-word can be) and a belief in the non-existent phenomenon of race; the r-word describes behaviour that is demonstrable, and demonstably disgusting. We need words like racism to describe social and historical patterns of behaviour that cause social and personal harm. I can't see that the n-word serves us in any comparable way.

The proscription of the n-word is justified on a number of levels, but for a start it has just that single racist and abusive denotation. The word "white" is a widely used word describing the visual appearance of all kinds of things and not just people with a particular skin colour. "White" can be a term of abuse, but it hardly has the historical weight or personal impact that the n-word has.

But all this is beside the point. This discusion is not addressing the concern voiced in the original article. Why not give it a try?

I was curious about that 'n' word which Leo claims that this web-engine refuses on grounds of profanity.

Other than 'negro' (Latin for "black") I cannot think of another such word starting with 'n' and here I am and this same web-engine allows it - here, Negro, with or without capitals, negro, plural negroes (my spell-checker insists that the plural must start with a capital, Negroes). I use this word for referring to people of black skin and other African features - no bad feelings, intent or contempt of any sort, just a natural attribute.

So then, I am getting more and more curious - what is this mysterious 'n' word you refer to? Can you spell it?

Or can this engine read the thoughts of the typist and censor on that basis?

Yuyutsu, perhaps you should think of the name of a famous dam busters black dog.

Yuyutsu. Six letters in the "n" word. Second and third letters ig. Fifth and sixth letters er.

Type it in and you will be given an instruction in red letters by the automatic Comment Editor.

No, it cannot detect the word, to which I refer, from this post.

This article is about flying the Aus flag, and with particular reference to Australia Day, and the emotions this day raises, with or without flag waving. Flying the Aus flag is nationalistic, yes, but is by no means a racist gesture (unless someone misguidedly wishes to make it so). And nationalism is a celebration of one's country.

It is a pity that some of our indigenous people take offence at the Aus flag (because of concerns about the colonial connotations, and associated loss of country) but the more enlightened view would be to see the flag as a mark of Aus today, and not that of the past. Understandably, some will continue to have a problem accepting this, but we must all try to move forward. (Particularly with reconciliation in mind.)

No-one is forced to live in Aus, so I see no reason why any immigrants (temporary, much less permanent) should take any exception to the flying of the flag - or of either of the Indigenous flags for that matter.

Some immigrants may wish to fly the national flag of their 'home' country, and I can see no reason for having a problem with this either, particularly on their 'national' day.

As we become increasingly multicultural, I see this as even more reason for celebrating our good fortune, one and all, of being able to live in this great open society, and recognising the Aus flag as belonging to all of us. Nationalism is at heart a celebration of togetherness, and a rejection of divisiveness. If we cannot associate with the flag, where is our identity? In football? (Heaven forbid.)

"where is our identity? In football?"

Have you, or have those who identify with a football team, ever stopped to think why you need this thing at all?

It is true that we should celebrate our good fortune, and part of that good fortune is that we are not forced to express national feelings, or else..., and are not even discriminated against if we don't.

Many immigrants, myself included, who fled expressions of nationalism in their old country, have not done so and came here only to adopt yet another nationalism. I do not fly ANY flag.

---

P.S. Thank you Leo, I never learned that word in school or ever used it. I'm afraid that Hasbeen's hint did not help me find it either. Even when I was in South Africa at the time of Apartheid, the word used for blacks was "Bantu".

Not having learned the word in your youth is almost credible, Yuyutsu.

>>I never learned that word in school or ever used it. I'm afraid that Hasbeen's hint did not help me find it either.<<

But not knowing the name of Wing Commander Guy Gibson's black dog - and not even being able to find it on the internet - is a suspension of disbelief too far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgePEO7GUtE

Have a great, politically correct, day.

"Not having learned the word in your youth is almost credible, Yuyutsu."

- English is not my first language. I've learnt it from good teachers and good books.

"But not knowing the name of Wing Commander Guy Gibson's black dog"

- I don't have a TV at home - one of the last things I miss. The only occasion when I may be exposed to this kind of movies is up in the air on international flights. So, until I actually saw your clip I was convinced that this "Wing Commander" is something out of Star-Wars.

Have a great day too, Pericles.

To Cardigan.

The word "race" exists in the English language, and it denotes an abstract concept. That is, that the world's population is roughly divided into three recognisable races, Asian, Caucasian, and Negro. To claim that races do not exist, is to make the same mistake which the Socialists made when they tried to tell everyone that "class" did not exist.

Both race and class may be abstract terms, and both of them may be social constructs, but they denote concepts which are very real.

And to claim that races are equal in every way with each other, is as stupid as saying that classes within communities are equal in every way with each other. Especially when those claiming that races and classes must be equal, are themselves claiming social, moral and intellectual superiority over despised suburbanites, and anyone else who disagrees with them.

Lego,

Let's check your logic with a quick word swap:

The word "God" exists in the English language, and it denotes an abstract concept.

Does that settle the question? Yeh, brilliant. All those philosophers and theologians have spilt all that ink, and Lego solves the question by looking up the dictionary. Well done. It's in the language, therefore it exists. Who would have thought?

Human difference exists, an undeniable and obvious biological fact. How we divide that difference up, however, is a cultural artefact. There is no substance to any of the putative "races" you mention. What appears self-evident to you (and many others) is nineteenth century science become folklore.

You will find web-pages that claim otherwise, sure. But the view I summarise in the preceding paragraph is that of all the major anthropological associations that have issued statements on "race".

Cardigan, are you asserting, in effect, that “race” is not recognised in any discipline as being capable of definition in such a manner as would enable it to be distinguished for the purposes of study?

If so, this is a little different to race being non existent.

Your statement has a similar basis to saying that Love, Justice, Beauty or Art do not exist. They exist, but are not able to be defined scientifically.

Definitions of such concepts are varied, and sometimes even contradictory, but they still exist as concepts, even if there are differences of opinion as to what they are.

Perhaps if you and Lego could agree on a definition of “exist”, your differences would disappear.

Lego’s definition seems to be “able to be conceived or described” whereas yours appears to be “able to be scientifically defined and studied”.

Leo,

The power of the idea of race and racial groups lies in its false claim to a basis in nature.

Earlier you cited statements about different groups and their "abilities" and "aptitudes": those kinds of attributes have no hereditary basis which is “able to be scientifically defined and studied", as you put it. Here is what the American Anthropological Association has to say about "abilities and aptitudes":

At the end of the 20th century, we now understand that human cultural behavior is learned, conditioned into infants beginning at birth, and always subject to modification. No human is born with a built-in culture or language. Our temperaments, dispositions, and personalities, regardless of genetic propensities, are developed within sets of meanings and values that we call "culture." Studies of infant and early childhood learning and behavior attest to the reality of our cultures in forming who we are.

And just in case you see "genetic propensities" as signaling some basis for race, here is what they say about the distribution of physical attributes:

Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. ... These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm

I wonder if Lego wants to acknowledge this last conclusion based on the facts of human variation? Or does he prefer to base his approach to other people on a set of racial illusions?

Cardigan, the paper to which you refer us is not authoritative.

It simply sets out the views of some members of the sick and sorry “discipline” of Anthropology, and in typical activist fashion, claims it to be the view of a majority.

Even if it were a majority, the assertion is simply an opinion, which will be fashionable for a time, despite its obvious flaws, and will finish up on the scrap heap where it belongs, in due course.

It is irrelevant to the discussion, in any event. The discussion relates to the use of the word “racist”.

Whether “race” exists or not, this objectionable anti-white pejorative word is plainly in common use.

Yes, what a load of inconsequential and jingoistic rubbish. I have no doubt Anne is a modern chardonnay socialist, with very wealthy parents, went to a private school, has had a lesbian experience and whose idea of a rough time is actually getting a luke warm latte and not being able to shop for a new butt plug online. A lot like Natasha Stott Despoja really. Most leftys are like slinky springs, they don't really serve any particular purpose but hell they are fun to push down the stairs.

Leo,

Would you like to say something sensible in criticism of the AAA Statement on Race instead of frothing at the mouth?